December 18, 2002 -- LOS ANGELES - A 15-year-old student who was banned from the girl's locker room at her school because she is a lesbian filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit yesterday in a case that tests the rights of gay students.

........The law states that people who make this choice cannot be punished by being discriminated against for making this choice...........
.
The reaction of the sexually normal group of girls is as normal as would the reaction to undressing in front of heterosexual males. Their discomfort is perfectly understandable. They choose to not continue this forced practice. The school acted appropriately. Any judgement that forces the continuance of this practice should result in an impeachment.

Look HM, I believe you are hitting on the constitutional principle, simply stated, that the rights of the individual can not be trampled by the many. It seems we do not agree on who the individual is.
.
.........Further, "you liberals"? What the hell do you mean by that?............
.
I honestly felt like I was arguing with a liberal. I admit that sometimes I get liberals and neocons mixed up.

Whose rights are being trumped? Since when does anyone (well not you, you're British) have a Constitutional right to not feel uncomfortable?

You're missing the point. Parents pay for that school, their kids participate in it, surely they should have a say in how it is run, and what policies it adopts.

If it were a private school and parents there were paying for it in a more direct fashion, you would be in no position to argue this point.

Your claims are just wrong. The girl certainly was being prevented from attending classes, was being prevented from "getting an education" in so much as those who developed the curriculum consider physical education part of "getting an education," and she was being prevented from participating in a school activity---gym class. You completely whiffed.

Then arrangements should be made so she can get changed for class. This does not trump the parents and their kids right to have a say in how their school is run and what policies their school adopts.

Foist a policy upon people whose legislators made such a policy a state law? A law based on the notion that all people deserve to be treated equal? Oh, how horrible . . .

Again you're missing the point. If I start up a men's only club, where men can talk about sports and fishing all day and exclude women, I am breaking your precious "treat equally" clause. But as it's my premises, I am not actually going out and harming anyone, you can clear off.

Similarly, if one student is causing discomfort, it is not unreasonable to ask that student to change elsewhere.

Now it could be she isn't causing discomfort - note, I suggested that they ASK the girls in question how they felt about it. If there are barriers to the girl actually participating in class, that's another matter entirely - because the mother of the lesbian teen paid for that service to be delivered, and thus the school has a responsibility for it to be delivered.

My notion of the statist heart beating in a libertarian chest is very simple: while the libertarians on this board may not agree on everything, at the same time, they have very precise ideas on what the rest of us should be forced to tolerate.

I still think you're confusing what you think should happen with what probably will happen. The school district will either settle, or else most likely lose the lawsuit, in which case we'll all be forced to live with it, you included.

That's a huge price to pay for a bunch of girls saying they "felt" uncomfortable...not because this little lesbian actually did anything besides be physically present.

Their discomfort is perfectly understandable. They choose to not continue this forced practice. The school acted appropriately. Any judgement that forces the continuance of this practice should result in an impeachment.

The heterosexual girls "chose" nothing---the gym teacher made the choice to exclude this girl from gym class because she was a professed homosexual. That choice, apparently, is against the law. Did you not read the two additional stories I posted on this thread, or did you read them and just fail to recognize this because it doesn't fit in with the point you're trying to make?

Look HM, I believe you are hitting on the constitutional principle, simply stated, that the rights of the individual can not be trampled by the many. It seems we do not agree on who the individual is.

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say something to the effect that the right to remain comfortable at all times shall not be infringed?

I honestly felt like I was arguing with a liberal. I admit that sometimes I get liberals and neocons mixed up.

Well then, I honestly believe you don't know what it means to call someone a liberal. You toss it about like a swear word without knowing what it means. Speaks volumes about you.

wimycat, The victory belonged to the liberals when it was ruled by fiat from the bench that homosexuality was just one form of our "diversity" and therefore a protected behavior to be celebrated. I'm sure you recall the pundits talking endlessly about the slippery slope. Guess what? They were right. We're getting closer to the bottom of that slope every day. There is now nothing that can stop the momentum other than the people shouting "NO MORE, THATS IT, I HAVE HAD ENOUGH". You or I are not going to convince the left that they are wrong. We can't even convince the people here that the liberals are wrong. We have played on the unleveled playing field by their rules to get where we are today. It's not going to get any better by continuing the game under these circumstances. There comes a time when biting and eye gouging mean survival. The legal victory happened years ago and it didn't go our way.

You're missing the point. Parents pay for that school, their kids participate in it, surely they should have a say in how it is run, and what policies it adopts. If it were a private school and parents there were paying for it in a more direct fashion, you would be in no position to argue this point.

I'm afraid you're missing the point---this happened at a public school, not a private school.

Then arrangements should be made so she can get changed for class. This does not trump the parents and their kids right to have a say in how their school is run and what policies their school adopts.

That's not the issue here: the issue is that a girl was denied the ability to attend a class based on what she might do, or what others might think. It never got to the point of an actual solution to the "problem" because the solution to the problem was throwing the girl out of class.

Again you're missing the point. If I start up a men's only club, where men can talk about sports and fishing all day and exclude women, I am breaking your precious "treat equally" clause. But as it's my premises, I am not actually going out and harming anyone, you can clear off.

Public vs. private, Ivan.

Now it could be she isn't causing discomfort - note, I suggested that they ASK the girls in question how they felt about it. If there are barriers to the girl actually participating in class, that's another matter entirely - because the mother of the lesbian teen paid for that service to be delivered, and thus the school has a responsibility for it to be delivered.

What do you mean "if there are barriers to the girl actually participating in class, that's another matter entirely"? That's exactly what happened. The barrier to the girl actually participating in the class was her being sent to the principal's office instead of being allowed to attend gym class. Did you not read the story?

My notion of the statist heart beating in a libertarian chest is very simple: while the libertarians on this board may not agree on everything, at the same time, they have very precise ideas on what the rest of us should be forced to tolerate.

That's because "the rest of you" often equate what you're forced to tolerate as actionable offenses. Nobody's asking the rest of you to tolerate lesbianism. What they're asking you to do is to allow a girl who self-identifies as a lesbian to attend gym class like any other girl could. Her mere presence among "you all" doesn't incite or propogate lesbianism, does it?

I'm afraid you're missing the point---this happened at a public school, not a private school.

Do the parents pay for it or not? (They do.) And as they pay for it, do they have a say in it or not?

What do you mean "if there are barriers to the girl actually participating in class, that's another matter entirely"? That's exactly what happened. The barrier to the girl actually participating in the class was her being sent to the principal's office instead of being allowed to attend gym class. Did you not read the story?

You're getting emotional. The ultimate point is whether or not she should be sharing changing rooms with the other girls. I suggested they ask the other girls and their families. You, in your ultimate wisdom, want to impose a policy.

That's because "the rest of you" often equate what you're forced to tolerate as actionable offenses. Nobody's asking the rest of you to tolerate lesbianism. What they're asking you to do is to allow a girl who self-identifies as a lesbian to attend gym class like any other girl could. Her mere presence among "you all" doesn't incite or propogate lesbianism, does it?

Nice try. Propgating lesbianism isn't the issue here. It is a matter of the rights of parents and children to determine how the schools which they pay for are run. You are saying that even if the girls feel uncomfortable, and their parents agree with them, they have NO RIGHTS whatsoever to have the lesbian girl change in another room. You are saying that the parents have to just lump it, and that's all.

I am saying, ask the girls if they want to have her in the same changing room. If not, set up an alternative facility. As gym class is something that takes place (more or less) fully clothed, the "peep show" element which determines why changing rooms are divided in the first place is gone, and thus the girl should be allowed to attend - she's paying for it, after all.

This has nothing to do with liking or disliking homosexuality. If I had a daughter, and she told me she was uncomfortable changing with this girl and her friends felt the same, you would be telling me that in spite of the fact I spent money on the school, I would have no recourse.

I see you're looking at it from a different perspective than I am. You're looking at it as part of the overall cultural war.

I'm looking at it from a one-on-one human perspective. No matter what my feelings are about homosexuality, if I was given the job of telling a young girl who, from all we know so far, did nothing to these other girls, that she was being relegated to the broom closet to dress out for gym, I couldn't do it. It goes against my conscience and I would refuse to do it. They would have to fire me. Maybe you could look her in the face and tell her, but I couldn't. And I don't think Jesus would do it. Because it's wrong. Jesus would have a lot of other things to say to this young lady, but He'd also have a lot of things to say to those other girls, too, about to treat other people. Because I don't believe that the girls are uncomfortable, I believe they don't like her whether she's a lesbian or not.

I guess it never occurred to anyone to sit down with all of these girls and talk it out. There were other ways to resolve the situation without kicking her out of the locker room.

Do the parents pay for it or not? (They do.) And as they pay for it, do they have a say in it or not?

They do. Parents speak through laws passed by legislatures in their jurisdiction. And in this jurisdiction, a law says you can't discriminate based on sexual preference. That law apparently governs even the operation of schools in this district. Is your zeal to make a point, why is this lost on you?

You're getting emotional. The ultimate point is whether or not she should be sharing changing rooms with the other girls. I suggested they ask the other girls and their families. You, in your ultimate wisdom, want to impose a policy.

I'm hardly getting emotional, but I do seem to be the only one on this thread interested in what actually went on vice what could've happened but didn't.

Nice try. Propgating lesbianism isn't the issue here. It is a matter of the rights of parents and children to determine how the schools which they pay for are run.

In what way is that not being done? The rights of parents aren't even an issue in this case. As far as the story reports, no parent insisted that the lesbian girl be removed from the gym class. The school did. The school acted alone. Again, have you read the story?

You are saying that even if the girls feel uncomfortable, and their parents agree with them, they have NO RIGHTS whatsoever to have the lesbian girl change in another room. You are saying that the parents have to just lump it, and that's all.

So you believe laws or rules should be made based on everyone's personal level of comfort?

This has nothing to do with liking or disliking homosexuality. If I had a daughter, and she told me she was uncomfortable changing with this girl and her friends felt the same, you would be telling me that in spite of the fact I spent money on the school, I would have no recourse.

Say your daughter told you she was uncomfortable changing around Jews. What possible recourse would you have?

..........To me nothing is more cowardly and lacking in honor than ganging up on someone for kicks........
.
You act as if that sort of thing happens every saturday night. The only instance that I recall was Mathew Sheppard.
I'm sure you would agree that the instance of spouses beating on each other is a far more common occurrance. Maybe you need to find another windmill.
.
.........Five Jets fans beat up a Dophin's fan and that's assault............
.
Actually thats nature's way of cleansing itself of Dolphin fans. Lighten up. Life's short.

They do. Parents speak through laws passed by legislatures in their jurisdiction. And in this jurisdiction, a law says you can't discriminate based on sexual preference. That law apparently governs even the operation of schools in this district. Is your zeal to make a point, why is this lost on you?

I see, so the parents can only have a say in how things are run at election time, in spite of the fact that most legislators run on a broad basket of issues most of the time. Apart from that, and perhaps writing the occasional letter to a legislator, they simply have to lie back and put ice on that when it comes to how their school is run on a day to day basis. Pardon me?

I'm hardly getting emotional, but I do seem to be the only one on this thread interested in what actually went on vice what could've happened but didn't.

You really don't want to concede the point that it might be a good idea to ask the parents and the students what they actually think and base any decisions on that. Secondly, if the child's right to participate in class is reinforced, then there is no discrimination.

So you believe laws or rules should be made based on everyone's personal level of comfort?

Sophistry. I am saying that the parents and children of this school should be consulted before this policy is decided. A consultation you seem to not want to occur.

Say your daughter told you she was uncomfortable changing around Jews. What possible recourse would you have?

Judaism is not a sexual preference. I was wondering when this tactic would be tried. Act Up uses it all the time.

You act as if that sort of thing happens every saturday night. The only instance that I recall was Mathew Sheppard.

Naw, it's like when a homeonwner defends himself with a gun. It's buried in the back pages (if reported at all). The reason why Sheppard was blasted to the front was that: A. He was murdered (as opposed to just beaten). B. His tormenters were White rednecks.

Granted it's not THAT common, but I include thugs who rob and mug, such as 3 grown men robbing a woman, in that same "cowardly and without honor" category. Despicable.

Lighten up.

What was it that you said to me about being sexually and mentally deficient?

..........Exactly where in the Constitution does it say something to the effect that the right to remain comfortable at all times shall not be infringed?.........
.
Exactly my point. The constitution does not guarantee the lesbian's right to bath with their chosen sexual prey. It's just too bad that the lesbian's feelings were hurt. Choices have consequences.
.
........Well then, I honestly believe you don't know what it means to call someone a liberal...................
.
Ah, I got it right the second time, a neocon. Means pretty much the same thing as liberal.

I see, so the parents can only have a say in how things are run at election time, in spite of the fact that most legislators run on a broad basket of issues most of the time. Apart from that, and perhaps writing the occasional letter to a legislator, they simply have to lie back and put ice on that when it comes to how their school is run on a day to day basis. Pardon me?

There are several options available to parents who think their children's PUBLIC school policies are misguided. However, the issue here is something else entirely---that is, the school must act according to the law.

You really don't want to concede the point that it might be a good idea to ask the parents and the students what they actually think and base any decisions on that. Secondly, if the child's right to participate in class is reinforced, then there is no discrimination.

Sure, if you wanted to base policy on "feelings" vice law and justice it might be a good idea, but the school didn't even do that. It acted on its own, and in all probability, it broke the law.

Say your daughter told you she was uncomfortable changing around Jews. What possible recourse would you have?

Judaism is not a sexual preference. I was wondering when this tactic would be tried. Act Up uses it all the time.

Thanks for the momentous revelation that Judaism isn't a sexual preference. However, it most certainly is a religious preference, and as such, it has as much bearing on one's ability to attend a gym class with other children as one's sexual preference does. Unless, of course, you feel that the rational basis for determing law or justice is everyone's personal "comfort level" with the choices other people make, even when those choices have no bearing on other peoples' lives whatsoever.

That's not very conservative. There's a set of rules for everyone, or there's no set of rules for anyone---just a hobgob amalgamation of "feelings"-based bullsh*t for protected special interest groups, no matter what side of the political aisle they're on.

What possibly could be a rational solution to this "problem"? Separate changing areas for girls, boys, female homosexuals, and male homosexuals? Specific changing times for homosexual girls and straight girls in the girls' locker room, and specific changing times for homosexual boys and straight boys in the boys' locker room? How much time would such an allowance for everyone's sensitivity cut into actually doing something productive in a gym class? And what's next---what happens when the trans-sexuals and transvestites demand similar treatment? This useless stratification based on assauging everyone's tender feelings is identity politics at its worst---again, not very conservative, if you ask me.

.......I see you're looking at it from a different perspective than I am. You're looking at it as part of the overall cultural war........
.
Dear good wimpycat. Yes I do look at this as a continuance of the culture war. Good people get hurt in all wars on all sides. Wars are also faught everyday in the smallest of skirmishes. The gains of the left could only occur because of the sense of fair play of the right. Your Christian morality becomes your Achilles Heel. (I believe that that is why it was prophecised that Christians would become persecuted.) I've got to fight the fight.

Exactly my point. The constitution does not guarantee the lesbian's right to bath with their chosen sexual prey.

So the lesbian, in your mind, is some female Nimrod searching hither and yon for the tender, unsuspecting flesh of innocent female youths---preying upon the poor unsuspecting lasses like some fiendish sexual vampire? Get your mind out of the gutter, man. She's a girl who did nothing of the kind. She was going to gym class.

It's just too bad that the lesbian's feelings were hurt. Choices have consequences.

So choose lesbianism, forget gym. That's how it goes?

Ah, I got it right the second time, a neocon. Means pretty much the same thing as liberal.

.........What was it that you said to me about being sexually and mentally deficient?.........
.
jjm2111, Heck, that was after lunch. You haven't gotten over that yet? Actually I was responding to an implied accusation about being a closet gay.

The gains of the left could only occur because of the sense of fair play of the right. Your Christian morality becomes your Achilles Heel. (I believe that that is why it was prophecised that Christians would become persecuted.) I've got to fight the fight. I've got to fight the fight.

I'm coming more and more to the realization that I can really only answer for my own actions. What I'm saying is, I'm all for fighting the good fight, but the how is just as important as the why. We'll all have to answer for our own actions, not the actions of others. Do you think you will be rewarded more for standing up against immorality, or for how you treated people in the process?

So the bottom line here is this is another case of social engineering . I thought so . It reminds me of the case where the good Dr. athiest used his daughter to get a case in front of the 9th circuit .

What I want to know is how in the hell does this child even know that she is a lesbian , much less what a lesbian is ?

.........So the lesbian, in your mind, is some female Nimrod searching hither and yon for the tender, unsuspecting flesh of innocent female youths---preying upon the poor unsuspecting lasses like some fiendish sexual vampire?.........
.
Darned if I know. Perhaps you can tell me what was on her mind. It does seem reasonable to assume that the lesbian had given her sexuality some thought in order to decide to pursue females. After all isn't that what lesbians consider when they ponder their choices?
.
.........So choose lesbianism, forget gym. That's how it goes? .......
.
There you go Ghost, you may have stumbled upon a solution to the lesbian's problem. No gym for professed lesbians. That works.
.
.........Whatever, you authoritarian freak.....
.
Does this mean I won the argument?

Actually I was responding to an implied accusation about being a closet gay.

From me? Are you sure you're responding to the right individual? This was my first post: "I've always thought homo bashers were covering up something." and it was not directed to you. If you believe it WAS directed at you either: A. - you and your buddies decided to have a little "fun" after too much Nattie Light one evening; -or- B. - you are misconstruing my usage of the word 'bashing', which I believe I clarified earlier.

You haven't gotten over that yet?

Never really worried about it in the first place. I just found it ironic that you insulted ME and then told me to "lighten up".

I don't know if she knows if she's really a lesbian, or if she just wants to be rebellious, (even Anne Heche can't make up her mind) but having once been a teenage girl myself back in the 80's, I believe I can say with confidence that she at least knows what a lesbian is.

..........Do you think you will be rewarded more for standing up against immorality, or for how you treated people in the process?........
.
I don't know wipycat. I do ponder the question all of the time. I believe that I treat people very well. As far as this forum goes (if that is what you are referring to) I understand that nothing is going to change as a result of spending some time here. Sometimes I think people on this forum over-estimate the importance of their statements here. I look at it as an enjoyable way to while away some time, nothing more. The real fight is out there where you get dirty. Doesn't everybody here participate for the fun of it?

There are several options available to parents who think their children's PUBLIC school policies are misguided. However, the issue here is something else entirely---that is, the school must act according to the law.

In so far as the girl has to be allowed to participate in gym class, I concede. Not in that she has any right to use the girls changing room any more than the boys do.

Sure, if you wanted to base policy on "feelings" vice law and justice it might be a good idea, but the school didn't even do that. It acted on its own, and in all probability, it broke the law.

According to you. The school only has an obligation to see that she gets to participate in the class, not that she uses a changing room.

Thanks for the momentous revelation that Judaism isn't a sexual preference

You brought in this tired old Act Up tactic. Sexual preferences are completely different from religions. Remember what I said at my very first post - the reason why men and women are segregated into different changing rooms has to do with it not turning into a peep show. A student being Jewish does not do this, unless you're some wacko anti-Semite.

That's not very conservative. There's a set of rules for everyone, or there's no set of rules for anyone---just a hobgob amalgamation of "feelings"-based bullsh*t for protected special interest groups, no matter what side of the political aisle they're on.

Quite touching that you defend the rules when you like them. I seem to recall that your grasp on drug laws in the United States was lex mala, lex nulla.

However, you can only say that the school "probably" or "possibly" broke the law, not that they did.

Secondly, you seem to not want to accept the societal norm about why changing rooms are segregated by sex.

Separate changing areas for girls, boys, female homosexuals, and male homosexuals...This useless stratification based on assauging everyone's tender feelings is identity politics at its worst---again, not very conservative, if you ask me.

No, it's not very conservative to steamroll over parents in favour of a special interest group, which you are so strenously defending.

.........No, it means you're an immature freak and you'll be treated as such by me from now on........
.
Usually name-calling is used when ones arguments become bankrupted. Actually, I was enjoying our interchanges. I didn't realize how easily you bruise.

You brought in this tired old Act Up tactic. Sexual preferences are completely different from religions.

Both of which have absolutely no bearing on an individual's ability to attend gym class . . .

Remember what I said at my very first post - the reason why men and women are segregated into different changing rooms has to do with it not turning into a peep show. A student being Jewish does not do this, unless you're some wacko anti-Semite.

So then wouldn't a more perfect world assign locker rooms based upon sexual preference vice actual sexual equipment?

Quite touching that you defend the rules when you like them. I seem to recall that your grasp on drug laws in the United States was lex mala, lex nulla.

However, you can only say that the school "probably" or "possibly" broke the law, not that they did.

A journalistic convention because this case hasn't been settled. Not unlike writing "alleged" or "allegedly" before everything.

Secondly, you seem to not want to accept the societal norm about why changing rooms are segregated by sex.

As I alluded to earlier, if this were truly the case, and society was really interested in preventing "peep shows" as you claim it is, changing rooms would be segregated by sexual preference, not by sex. There'd be a homo room and a hetero room. As a hetero man I'd have to change with other hetero men, but I wouldn't have to change with homosexual men. But whose loins is society trying to cool here? Could a lesbian woman change among heterosexual men? How about a straight woman among homosexual men? A straight guy among lesbian women? Or how about bisexuals---can they pick and choose depending on the day of the week? The permutations are endless.

No, it's not very conservative to steamroll over parents in favour of a special interest group, which you are so strenously defending.

No parents other than the lesbian girl's mother were consulted in this case. Why do you continue to exist they were---that they rose up and demanded their daughters be allowed to change for gym class in a lesbian-free environment?

So then wouldn't a more perfect world assign locker rooms based upon sexual preference vice actual sexual equipment?

Sophistry. Since the Victorian Era at least, this was precisely the division - it was considered unseemly to have the two sexes changing in front of each other for peep show reasons. The reason why homosexuals did not get their "own" rooms was because until very late in the 20th century, while homosexuality existed, it was not something that was out in the open, thus no provision was made when this societal norm was created.

No parents other than the lesbian girl's mother were consulted in this case. Why do you continue to exist they were---that they rose up and demanded their daughters be allowed to change for gym class in a lesbian-free environment?

You're missing the point. You are basically saying that the other girls and their parents have no say in this. I am saying they do.

I wasn't referring to this forum, but to how you would act if you were one of the players in this article. What would you have done if you were the gym teacher, or the principle, or one of the parents? That's what I was talking about.

I'm surprised this is going on in LA. In my neck of the woods(Modesto, Ca) lesbian chic is now a trendy thing in high schools. It's practically commonplace to see girls kissing in the halls. My mother actually had to pull my sister out of her school and put her on independent study so she wouldn't be exposed that sort of thing. That was four years ago. There is a gay club at my old high school and my sister and her friends have told me horror stories about aggressive lesbians in the athletic programs.

Sophistry. Since the Victorian Era at least, this was precisely the division - it was considered unseemly to have the two sexes changing in front of each other for peep show reasons. The reason why homosexuals did not get their "own" rooms was because until very late in the 20th century, while homosexuality existed, it was not something that was out in the open, thus no provision was made when this societal norm was created.

Regardless, homosexuality is now out in the open so your Victorian Era sensibilities and your rationale for sexually segregated changing areas no longer apply. What you're arguing for, then, is a new societal norm where it's considered unseemly to have people who are potentially sexually attractive to each other changing in front of each other. Isn't this the logical endpoint of your argument?

No parents other than the lesbian girl's mother were consulted in this case. Why do you continue to exist they were---that they rose up and demanded their daughters be allowed to change for gym class in a lesbian-free environment?

You're missing the point. You are basically saying that the other girls and their parents have no say in this. I am saying they do.

What "say" could they possibly have? Because their daughters feel uncomfortable changing in front of a lesbian girl, exactly what rules or order should the parents of the uncomfortable girls have the power and authority to enforce?

Regardless, homosexuality is now out in the open so your Victorian Era sensibilities and your rationale for sexually segregated changing areas no longer apply. What you're arguing for, then, is a new societal norm where it's considered unseemly to have people who are potentially sexually attractive to each other changing in front of each other. Isn't this the logical endpoint of your argument?

So you want to abolish the idea of segregated changing rooms altogether? How interesting.

What "say" could they possibly have? Because their daughters feel uncomfortable changing in front of a lesbian girl, exactly what rules or order should the parents of the uncomfortable girls have the power and authority to enforce?

As they pay for the school, they are the "stakeholders" in that school. If a policy is going to be decided, there must be some form of consultation of the stakeholders for their approval. It is this consultation which you so stridently disapprove of.

Bwahaha... I saw a clip on CNN about this last night in the bar-- all my buddies started saying "Is that a chick or a dude? I don't know, I can't tell" and there she was for all the nation to see in all her humiliated butch-cut pimply-faced glory...

So you want to abolish the idea of segregated changing rooms altogether? How interesting.

Absolutely not. I'm arguing that the "uncomfortableness" of others is not a just or even a sound basis for punishing a different person, especially when the different person has done nothing wrong. It would be another thing altogether if the lesbian girl was harassing her heterosexual classmates by leering at them, etc., or whatever scenario a prurient mind wants to construct. But she wasn't doing anything of the sort---she was being punished solely because of who she is.

As they pay for the school, they are the "stakeholders" in that school. If a policy is going to be decided, there must be some form of consultation of the stakeholders for their approval. It is this consultation which you so stridently disapprove of.

Hardly. This consultation was done statutorily when California passed a law saying that its institutions couldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation. I think that's pretty clear---you don't?

I'm arguing that the "uncomfortableness" of others is not a just or even a sound basis for punishing a different person

Girls are uncomfortable changing in front of boys. That's why the segregation occured in the first place, precisely because of the sexual element involved, open leering or not. You are basically saying that lesbians have more rights than boys to a potential peep show in the ladies locker room and the other girls cannot do anything about it. You may not intend it, but that is the effect nonetheless.

Hardly. This consultation was done statutorily when California passed a law saying that its institutions couldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation. I think that's pretty clear---you don't?

The same statutes also say that you can't discriminate based on gender, but still separate men's and women's changing rooms remain in spite of the law. Why? Because it is an accepted convention that changing rooms should be separate to prevent the "peep show" element which I've described.

You are basically saying that lesbians have more rights than boys to a potential peep show in the ladies locker room and the other girls cannot do anything about it. You may not intend it, but that is the effect nonetheless.

Not at all, unless you figure that sexual stimulation in non-sexual situations is some sort of entitlement "right." You can't seem to come to grips with the fact that this girl was punished for who she was, not what she did. How, exactly, is that just? And again---why is anyone's comfort level a justifiable reason to punish someone else?

The same statutes also say that you can't discriminate based on gender, but still separate men's and women's changing rooms remain in spite of the law. Why? Because it is an accepted convention that changing rooms should be separate to prevent the "peep show" element which I've described.

Women change in womens' locker rooms and men change in mens' locker rooms. Lesbians don't change in lesbian-only womens' locker rooms, homosexual men don't change in gay-only mens' locker rooms, straight women don't change in straight women only locker rooms, and straight men don't change in straight men only locker rooms. Or do they in England?

Not at all, unless you figure that sexual stimulation in non-sexual situations is some sort of entitlement "right."

Changing rooms under normal circumstances are non-sexual rooms. But they are segregated anyway because of the sexual context, a fact you cannot deny.

You can't seem to come to grips with the fact that this girl was punished for who she was, not what she did.

Go tell it to Oprah. I am dealing with what the resulting policy should be. The sum total of listening to you is as follows - heterosexual boys, rightly, are denied the potential of a "peep show" in their changing facilities. Lesbian girls on the other hand, are not. If you cannot see how this is unequal, then you have a problem - you go on about justice and treating people fairly. Think of it from that angle.

Women change in womens' locker rooms and men change in mens' locker rooms. Lesbians don't change in lesbian-only womens' locker rooms, homosexual men don't change in gay-only mens' locker rooms, straight women don't change in straight women only locker rooms, and straight men don't change in straight men only locker rooms. Or do they in England?

You're going around in circles. I've said to you many times why that segregation was done in the first place. You may want to pretend it has something to do with mere anatomy. The segregation of men and women's changing rooms has to do with the peep show element. You are basically saying that gays and lesbians are entitled to this "peep show element" that heterosexual men and women are denied. And you call yourself an advocate of "equality".

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.